An update: Health economics of managing multiple myeloma

Cost of Illness in Patients with Multiple Myeloma in Italy: The CoMiM Study

Aims and background

Multiple myeloma is the second most common hematological cancer. Although it accounts for only a relatively small percentage of all cancer types, the costs associated with managing multiple myeloma are considerable. Available studies are mainly focused on health care costs. The Costo del Mieloma Multiplo (Cost of MM, CoMiM) study investigated the cost of illness of multiple myeloma in Italy during one year of disease management.

Methods

CoMiM is a retrospective, prevalence-based, multi-center, cross-sectional study based on a stratified sample of patients seen during normal clinical practice (asymptomatic; symptomatic on drugs; symptomatic receiving autologous stem cell transplantation; plateau/remission). Demographics, clinical history, health care and non-health care resource consumption data were collected. Costs were evaluated from the societal viewpoint and expressed in Euro 2008.

Results

Data on 236 patients were analyzed (39 asymptomatic, 17%; 29 symptomatic receiving autologous stem-cell transplantation, 12%; 105 symptomatic receiving drugs, 44%; 63 plateau/remission, 27%). The total cost of illness reached € 19,267.1 ± 25,078.6 (asymptomatic, € 959.3 ± 1091.6; symptomatic receiving drugs, € 21,707.8 ± 21,785.3; symptomatic receiving autologous stem-cell transplantation, € 59,243.7 ± 24,214.0; plateau/remission, € 8130.7 ± 15,092.5). The main cost drivers of total cost of illness were drugs and hospital admissions (46.1% and 29.4%, respectively). Antineoplastics and immunomodulators drove the cost of drugs (21.6% and 21.1% of the total cost of illness). Cost of antineoplastics was led by bortezomib (97.4%), whereas the cost driver for immunomodulators was lenalidomide (99.4%). Cost of hospitalization funded by the Italian National Health Service was strongly influenced by transplantation (94.6%), whereas chemotherapy and skeletal fractures did not exceed 1% and 2%, respectively.

Conclusions

Despite some limitations, the CoMiM study provides Italian health care decision-makers with an insight into the stratified cost of illness of multiple myeloma patients.

Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation in Patients With Multiple Myeloma: An Activity-based Costing Analysis, Comparing a Total Inpatient Model Versus an Early Discharge Model

BACKGROUND

Activity-based costing (ABC) was developed and advocated as a means of overcoming the systematic distortions of traditional cost accounting.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We calculated the cost of high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) in patients with multiple myeloma using the ABC method, through 2 different care models: the total inpatient model (TIM) and the early-discharge outpatient model (EDOM) and compared this with the approved diagnosis related-groups (DRG) Italian tariffs.

RESULTS

The TIM and EDOM models involved a total cost of €28,615.15 and €16,499.43, respectively. In the TIM model, the phase with the greatest economic impact was the posttransplant (recovery and hematologic engraftment) with 36.4% of the total cost, whereas in the EDOM model, the phase with the greatest economic impact was the pretransplant (chemo-mobilization, apheresis procedure, cryopreservation, and storage) phase, with 60.4% of total expenses. In an analysis of each episode, the TIM model comprised a higher absorption than the EDOM. In particular, the posttransplant represented 36.4% of the total costs in the TIM and 17.7% in EDOM model, respectively. The estimated reduction in cost per patient using an EDOM model was over €12,115.72. The repayment of the DRG in Calabrian Region for the ASCT procedure is €59,806. Given the real cost of the transplant, the estimated cost saving per patient is €31,190.85 in the TIM model and €43,306.57 in the EDOM model.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the actual repayment of the DRG does not correspond to the real cost of the ASCT procedure in Italy. Moreover, using the EDOM, the cost of ASCT is approximately the half of the TIM model.

Cost Implications of Comorbidity for Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation in Elderly Patients with Multiple Myeloma Using SEER-Medicare

Comorbidity is more common in older patients and can increase the cost of care by increasing toxicity. Using the SEER-Medicare database from 2000 to 2007, we examined the costs and life-year benefit of Auto-HSCT for MM patients over the age of 65 by evaluating the difference over time relative to comorbidity burden. One hundred ten patients had an Auto-HSCT in the early time period (2000–2003) and 160 in the late time period (2004–2007). Patients were divided by a Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) of 0 or greater than 1 (CCI1+). Median overall survival was 53.5 months for the late time period patients compared to 40.3 months for the early time period patients (p = 0.031). Median costs for CCI0 versus CCI1+ in the early period were, respectively, $70,900 versus $72,000 (100 d); $86,100 versus $98,300 (1 yr); and $139,200 versus $195,300 (3 yrs). Median costs for late period were, respectively, $58,400 versus $60,400 (100 d); $86,300 versus $77,700 (1 yr); and $124,400 versus $110,900 (3 yrs). Comorbidity had a significant impact on survival and cost among early time period patients but not among late time period patients. Therefore, older patients with some comorbidities can be considered for Auto-HSCT depending on clinical circumstances.

Cost-Effectiveness of Autologous Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation for Elderly Patients with Multiple Myeloma using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare Database

In the past decade, the number of autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplants (Auto HSCT) for older patients with multiple myeloma (MM) has increased dramatically, as has the cost of transplantation. The cost-effectiveness of this modality in patients over age 65 is unclear. Using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare database to create a propensity-score matched sample of patients over age 65 between 2000 and 2007, we compared the survival and cost for those who received Auto HSCT to those who did not undergo transplantation but survived at least 6 months after diagnosis, and we calculated an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Two hundred seventy patients underwent transplantation. Median overall survival from diagnosis in those who underwent transplantation was significantly longer than in patients who did not (58 months versus 37 months, P < .001). For patients living longer than 2 years, the median monthly cost during the first year was significantly different, but the middle and last year of life costs were similar. The median cost of the first 100 days after transplantation was $60,000 (range, $37,000 to $85,000). The resultant ICER was $72,852 per life-year gained. Survival after transplantation was comparable to that in those who underwent transplantation patients under 65 years and significantly longer than older patients who did not undergo transplantation. With an ICER less than $100,000/life-year gained, Auto HSCT is cost-effective when compared with nontransplantation care in the era of novel agents and should be considered, where clinically indicated, for patients over the age of 65.

Long term evaluation of the impact of autologous peripheral blood stem cell transplantation in multiple myeloma: a cost-effectiveness analysis

Background

High-dose therapy with autologous peripheral stem cell transplantation represents today the standard approach for younger multiple myeloma patients. This study aimed to evaluate the long term economic impact of autologous transplantation with respect to conventional therapy.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed the charts of multiple myeloma patients diagnosed at our department between 1986 and 2003 and treated according to the therapy considered standard at the time of diagnosis. Analysis of costs was done by assessing resource utilization and direct costs were measured and monetized before proceeding with the analysis, based on public health service tariffs.

Results

Group A including 78 patients treated with Melphalan and Prednisone was compared with Group B including 74 patients who received an autologous transplant. The median overall survival was 3.2 and 5.4 years respectively (p = 0.0002). Mean cost per patient was significantly higher in group B with respect to group A (102373€ vs 23825€; p<0.001). The final quality-adjusted-life-year gain in group B patients as compared to group A was 1.73 QALY, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of 45460€. With a threshold of 75000€ per QALY gained, the cost effectiveness acceptability curve indicated that the probability that autologous transplantation in multiple myeloma is a cost-effective intervention is 90%.

Conclusions

The cost of autologous transplantation remains high. The calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, however, given the significant prolongation of overall survival obtained with autologous transplantation, is within an acceptable threshold. Notwithstanding, its high cost should be taken into account when considering the whole cost of multiple myeloma.

Total cost comparison in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma

OBJECTIVES

Advances in survival in multiple myeloma have focused payer attention on the cost of care. An assessment was conducted to compare the costs of two recent treatments for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (rrMM), from the perspective of a US payer.

METHODS

An economic model estimated the total costs of care for two guideline-recommended therapies in rrMM patients: bortezomib (BORT) and lenalidomide plus dexamethasone (LEN/DEX). To evaluate total treatment costs, the costs associated with drug treatment, medical resource utilization, and adverse event (AE) management were determined for each regimen over a common 1-year period. Medical costs and grade 3/4 AE costs were based on rates from published literature, package inserts, and fee schedules (US dollars). To evaluate cost per outcome, assessments determined the monthly costs without disease progression based on pivotal clinical trials (APEX [BORT] and MM-009/MM-010 [LEN/DEX]). Univariate sensitivity analyses and alternative scenarios were also conducted.

RESULTS

Drug costs for the treatments were very similar, differing by under $10 per day. Medical and AE management costs for BORT were higher by more than $40 per day. Treatment with BORT had annual excess total costs of >$17,000 compared with LEN/DEX. A cost advantage for LEN/DEX was maintained across a variety of sensitivity analyses. Total cost per month without progression was 11% lower with LEN/DEX.

LIMITATIONS

This analysis relied on separate studies having similar comparators, populations, and end-points. Actual treatment patterns and costs pre- and post-relapse may vary from the base scenario and sensitivities modeled. The 12-month time frame captures the preponderance of costs for a relapse line of therapy, yet may not reflect the entirety of costs. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether, or how, a difference in the lifetime costs of the two regimens would vary from the 1-year cost difference.

CONCLUSION

While rrMM treatment with BORT and LEN/DEX had comparable drug costs, total treatment costs for BORT were higher due to ongoing direct medical and AE management costs. Total costs per outcome (a month without disease progression) were lower for LEN/DEX.

Management of relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma in French hospitals and estimation of associated direct costs: a multi-centre retrospective cohort study

WHAT IS KNOWN AND BACKGROUND

 For relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM), a series of novel agents (thalidomide, bortezomib and lenalidomide) has emerged during the latest decade, but their use in routine clinical practice is not well documented as well as the cost of RRMM.

OBJECTIVE

Our aim is to review the therapeutic management of such patients in France and to estimate the associated costs.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study, based on chart reviews, was conducted in French Haematology Departments over the period 2004-2007 and the associated direct costs estimated.

RESULTS

One hundred and two patients with a relapse after first-line therapy were selected from five centres. The average follow-up from diagnosis or the date of first relapse to death or to the latest news was respectively 56.25 and 23.53 months. Novel agents were used in 73% of all cases, and in all cases of first relapse. Thalidomide and bortezomib were respectively the most frequently used second-line (57%) and third-line treatments (44%). The average number of lines of treatment received per patient as from first relapse was 2.75 (min 1; max 8) and the mean direct cost per month was estimated at 3130 € after the first relapse. This cost was represented in greater part by the cost of chemotherapy drugs (66%).

WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION

The use of novel agents such as thalidomide, bortezomib and lenalidomide for RRMM is highly prevalent in France from the first relapse. The associated medical cost is substantial mainly due to the cost of the new agents.

Analysis of physicians' perspectives versus patients' preferences: direct assessment and discrete choice experiments in the therapy of multiple myeloma

BACKGROUND

Against the background of patient involvement, understanding patients' preferences for treatments is crucial: Do physicians have the same or a different perception of the patients' preferences? As there is currently no cure for patients with multiple myeloma, primary objectives of treatment are to extend survival at the best possible quality of life. In this study, physicians' beliefs about patients' preferences regarding the treatment of multiple myeloma (MM) were explored in a direct assessment and a discrete choice experiment (DCE), and were compared to the previously explored patients' views. How much do physicians know about their patients' preferences?

METHODS

In a preceding study with German multiple myeloma patients, relevant attributes of an ideal multiple myeloma treatment were collected by reviewing the literature and by conducting a qualitative study with focus groups. The attributes were analyzed using both a direct measurement (16 items on a five-point Likert scale) and a DCE (eight pairs with eight characteristics). For the present study, 30 German physicians reviewed the treatment attributes from the previous study for completeness. A total of 243 physicians participated in the study (including the 30 participants in the pre-test). The direct assessment and the DCE covered four major preference dimensions that both the literature review and the focus groups revealed: Aspects of medical effectiveness (including prolonged life expectancy, effectiveness and long duration of effect), side effects, quality of life (including social, physical and emotional quality of life) and flexibility (breaks in therapy and further treatment options).

RESULTS

In the direct measurement of patients' preferences, physicians rated physical quality of life (specified as "reduced mobility or good mobility"), rare side effects and effectiveness aspects (duration of effect, maximal prolonged life expectancy and effectiveness) as the most important attributes from the patients' perspective, followed by emotional quality of life (specified as "Not always think of the disease") and therapy-free intervals. Especially further treatment options and dosage were more important to patients than physicians believed. In this case, the physicians had quite obviously underestimated the importance of these attributes from the perspective of those affected. Physicians ranked prolonged life expectancy as relatively the most important and significantly more important than all other treatment attributes. Further treatment options were the second most important attribute and significant compared to the attributes breaks in therapy and physical quality of life, whereas the patients ordered these two attributes in reverse order. Similarly, the patients gave the opposite relative importance to the next two priorities: self-application of treatment and emotional quality of life.

CONCLUSIONS

Asking patients or physicians about the multiple myeloma patients' treatment preferences, the combination of direct assessment and DCE proves to be a valid survey technique. Over a broad range of treatment attributes, the physicians' perceptions of preferences were very close to those of multiple myeloma patients. Both the direct assessment of importance in order to rank the patient perceptions and the DCE provide important insights into the preference structure of patients with multiple myeloma. The findings can subsequently be used as a basis for tailoring health care services for multiple myeloma patients in reference to their preferences.

Critical review of economic evaluations in multiple myeloma: an overview of the economic evidence and quality of the methodology

Continued expansion in the availability of costly alternative therapies in multiple myeloma will enhance the role of economic evaluations in reimbursement decisions and amendments to the treatment guidelines. The quality of economic evaluations should be taken into account by clinicians involved in decision-making. A systematic review and critique of the methodology was performed to assess the trends and quality in economic evaluations in multiple myeloma to date. A literature search was conducted to identify full economic evaluations in multiple myeloma as of December 2009. Details of the economic evaluation methods applied were extracted. Each study underwent a quality assessment based on the Drummond checklist for appraisal of high-quality economic evaluations in health care. Eighteen published economic evaluations were identified. Stem cell transplantation in combination with intensive chemotherapy has been demonstrated to be cost-effective, while interferon alpha is generally ineffective at additional costs. Evaluations have become less frequent in the last decade, especially for newer therapies despite their important contribution to improvements in outcomes. The quality of the methodology applied and its documentation can be improved in many aspects. As users of the results of economic evaluations, clinicians involved in guiding decision-making should be critical of the quality of economic evaluations in multiple myeloma. To ensure access to and identification of high-quality studies, researchers conducting economic evaluations of future advances should strive towards evaluations that fulfil the Drummond criteria and are properly documented.

EPO in combination with G-CSF improves mobilization effectiveness after chemotherapy with ifosfamide, epirubicin and etoposide and reduces costs during mobilization and transplantation of autologous hematopoietic progenitor cells

A successful stem cell harvest is a prerequisite for peripheral blood SCT. We investigated the number of CD34(+) cells mobilized, the number of leukaphereses needed and the expenses of treatment for 28 patients with multiple myeloma randomly assigned to receive either G-CSF alone or G-CSF+EPO for stem cell mobilization after chemotherapy with ifosfamide, epirubicin and etoposide. All patients treated with G-CSF+EPO reached the threshold of 6 x 10(6) CD34(+) cells per kg body weight (kgbw), with a mean of 1.3 leukaphereses. On average 15.4 x 10(6) CD34(+) cells/kgbw were collected. In the G-CSF-alone group, the mean number of leukaphereses was 1.8, and 12.6 x 10(6) CD34(+) cells/kgbw were collected, and two patients failed the threshold. Overall costs per patient for mobilization and leukaphereses were 8339 euro (G-CSF+EPO) and 8842 euro (G-CSF). After transplantation, fewer blood transfusions (0.6 versus 1.3, P=0.05), fewer days on antibiotics (2.3 versus 6.1, P=0.02) and a shorter hospital stay (15.2 versus 17.8, P=0.06) were noted in the G-CSF+EPO group resulting in a 19.2% reduction of costs for each transplant (P=0.018). In summary, EPO improves the mobilization efficiency of G-CSF and so reduces costs of mobilization and SCT.

Bortezomib: a novel chemotherapeutic agent for hematologic malignancies

PURPOSE

The pharmacology, pharmacokinetics, clinical efficacy, safety, dosage and administration, place in therapy, and cost of bortezomib in the treatment of multiple myeloma and mantle cell lymphoma are reviewed.

SUMMARY

Bortezomib is a modified dipeptidyl boronic acid that disrupts essential intracellular pathways by inhibiting proteasomes. The drug is metabolized by cytochrome P-450 isoenzymes 3A4, 2C19, and 1A2 to four inactive metabolites. Bortezomib was initially developed for the treatment of multiple myeloma based on the findings of early in vitro studies of patients with multiple myeloma who received at least one prior course of treatment; the drug received approval for the treatment of mantle cell lymphoma based on a single, noncomparative, Phase II study of previously treated patients. Significant toxicities have been reported with the use of bortezomib, including peripheral neuropathy, neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia. The dosage of bortezomib recommended by the manufacturer is 1.3 mg/m(2) per dose administered as an i.v. bolus injection twice weekly on days 1, 4, 8, and 11 of a three-week cycle. It is not necessary to adjust the dosage of bortezomib in patients with renal impairment. Bortezomib is being investigated as a treatment for several other malignant conditions. The current wholesale price of bortezomib is $1,322.40 for a single-use vial containing 3.5 mg of bortezomib lyophilized powder, with one course of treatment costing approximately $27,500 in drug cost alone.

CONCLUSION

Bortezomib, an antineoplastic agent that reversibly inhibits the 26S proteasome, offers an important treatment option for patients with multiple myeloma or mantle cell lymphoma.